Of those which still continue in the state of aliens, and have
made no approaches towards assimilation, some seem necessary to
be retained, because the purchasers of the Dictionary will expect
to find them. Such are many words in the common law, as
capias, habeas corpus, præmunire,
nisi prius: such are some terms of controversialdivinity,
as hypostasis; and of physick, as the names of diseases;
and, in general, all terms which can be found in books not
written professedly upon particular arts, or can be supposed
necessary to those who do not regularly study them. Thus, when a
reader not skilled in physick happens in Milton upon this line,

But there ought, however, to be some distinction made between the
different classes of words; and, therefore, it will be proper to
print those which are incorporated into the language in the usual
character, and those which are still to be considered as foreign,
in the Italick letter.

Besides, as such words, like others, require that their accents
should be settled, their sounds ascertained, and their
etymologies deduced, they cannot be properly omitted in the
Dictionary. And though the explanations of some may be censured
as trivial, because they are almost universally understood, and
those of others as unnecessary, because they will seldom occur,
yet it seems not proper to omit them; since it is rather to be
wished that many readers should find more than they expect, than
that one should miss what he might hope to find.

When a question of orthography is dubious, that practice has, in
my opinion, a claim to preference which preserves the greatest
number of radical letters, or seems most to comply with the
general custom of our language. But the chief rule which I
propose to follow is, to make no innovation without a reason
sufficient to balance the inconvenience of change; and such
reasons I do not expect often to find. All change is of itself an
evil, which ought not to be hazarded but for evident advantage;
and as inconstancy is in every case a mark of weakness, it will
add nothing to the reputation of our tongue. There are, indeed,
some who despise the inconveniences of confusion, who seem to
take pleasure in departing from custom, and to think alteration
desirable for its own sake; and the reformation of our
orthography, which these writers have attempted, should not pass
without its due honours, but that I suppose they hold singularity
its own reward, or may dread the fascination of lavish praise.

When this part of the work is performed, it will be necessary to
inquire how our primitives are to be deduced from foreign
languages, which may be often very successfully performed by the
assistance of our own etymologists. This search will give
occasion to many curious disquisitions, and sometimes, perhaps,
to conjectures, which to readers unacquainted with this kind of
study, cannot but appear improbable and capricious. But it may be
reasonably imagined, that what is so much in the power of men as
language, will very often be capriciously conducted. Nor are
these disquisitions and conjectures to be considered altogether
as wantonsports of wit, or vain shows of learning; our language
is well known not to be primitive or self-originated, but to have
adopted words of every generation, and, either for the supply of
its necessities, or the increase of its copiousness, to have
received additions from very distant regions; so that in search
of the progenitors of our speech, we may wander from the tropick
to the frozen zone, and find some in the valleys of Palestine,
and some upon the rocks of Norway.

Beside the derivation of particular words, there is likewise an
etymology of phrases. Expressions are often taken from other
languages; some apparently, as to run a risk, courir un
risque; and some even when we do not seem to borrow their
words; thus, to bring about, or accomplish, appears an
English phrase, but in reality our native word about has
no such import, and is only a French expression, of which we have
an example in the common phrase venir a bout d'une
affaire.

In exhibiting the descent of our language, our etymologists seem
to have been too lavish of their learning, having traced almost
every word through various tongues, only to show what was shown
sufficiently by the first derivation. This practice is of great
use in synoptical lexicons, where mutilated and doubtful
languages are explained by their affinity to others more certain
and extensive, but is generally superfluous in English
etymologies. When the word is easily deduced from a Saxonoriginal, I shall not often inquire further, since we know not
the parent of the Saxon dialect; but when it is borrowed from the
French, I shall show whence the French is apparently derived.
Where a Saxon root cannot be found, the defect may be supplied
from kindred languages, which will be generally furnished with
much liberality by the writers of our glossaries; writers who
deserve often the highest praise, both of judgment and industry,
and may expect at least to be mentioned with honour by me, whom
they have freed from the greatest part of a very laborious work,
and on whom they have imposed, at worst, only the easy task of
rejecting superfluities.

Our inflections, therefore, are by no means constant, but admit
of numberlessirregularities, which in this Dictionary will be
diligently noted. Thus fox makes in the plural
foxes, but ox makes oxen. Sheep is
the same in both numbers. Adjectives are sometimes compared by
changing the last syllable, as proud, prouder, proudest;
and sometimes by particles prefixed, as ambitious,
more ambitious, most ambitious. The forms of our
verbs are subject to great variety; some end their preter tense
in ed, as I love, I loved, I have
loved; which may be called the regular form, and is
followed by most of our verbs of southern original. But many
depart from this rule, without agreeing in any other, as I
shake, I shook, I have shaken or
shook, as it is sometimes written in poetry; I
make, I made, I have made; I bring, I
brought; I wring, I wrung; and many others,
which, as they cannot be reduced to rules, must be learned from
the dictionary rather than the grammar.

it is not in our power to have recourse to any established laws
of speech; but we must remark how the writers of former ages have
used the same word, and consider whether he can be acquitted of
impropriety, upon the testimony of Davies, given in his favour by
a similar passage: